Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Integral assessment of estrogenic potentials of sediment-associated samples

Part 1: The influence of salinity on the in vitro tests ELRA, E-Screen and YES

  • Research Article
  • OpenChoice Subject Area 6.4: Monitoring and fate of persistent chemicals (POPs) including new compounds
  • Published:
Environmental Science and Pollution Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Goal, Scope and Background

Exogenic endocrine-active substances are also called ‘Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals’ (EDC). They imitate or hinder the function of natural endogenic hormones or disturb the synthesis or the metabolism of hormones or of hormone receptors. The Enzyme-Linked Receptor Assay (ELRA) can detect estrogenic and anti-estrogenic effects at the level of receptor binding and is a useful tool for the integrative detection of contaminant effects. Although the test system has been used repeatedly in sediment assessments, the questions have remained concerning how it responds to variations in the physico-chemical matrix. For some bioassays, the salinity of the sample is a critical factor. This is especially relevant when testing wastewater samples or when sediment-associated samples in the tidal reaches of rivers are tested. Sediments in the tidal reaches of rivers change their salinity several times a day. Against this background, it would be beneficial to have a test procedure of known salinity tolerance. On account of this, the salinity tolerance of the ELRA was tested, assessed with reference substances at several salinity levels, and compared with the E-Screen method and a Yeast Estrogen Screen (YES), which are also frequently applied in environmental testing. The aim of this paper was to explore when the salinity limits within these test procedures are applicable. The trials should reveal the working range to be expected, characterize the salinity-dependent variations in sensitivity of the test, and provide options for methodological adjustments to improve the stability against increased salinity.

Methods

The ELRA was carried out with the human Estrogen Receptor α. (ER) using the same principle like a competitive immunoassay based on ligand-protein interaction. However, an essential difference is the use of a physiologically relevant receptor instead of an antibody as a linking protein. The ELRA measures the competition of sample estrogens and anti-estrogens against estradiol supplied as a BSA-coating conjugate for the binding site of dissolved ER. Estradiol or xeno-estrogen binding is quantified by a biotynilated anti-ER antibody and the subsequent measurement of peroxidase activity by a streptavidin-POD-biotin complex. The E-Screen was performed with the human breast cancer cell line MCF-7, which expresses the estrogen receptor constitutively. Cell proliferation depends on binding of estrogens or xeno-estrogens with the receptor. After incubation, estrogen-dependent cell growth was measured by sulforhodamin B staining. The YES was performed with a recombinant yeast strain, transfected with a receptor and a reporter plasmid bearing the estrogen receptor and a vitellogenin gene fused with the reporter gene lacZ. Estrogen or xeno-estrogen-dependent gene induction was measured indirectly by LacZ activity. The salinity levels were simulated in varying concentrations with NaCl from 0 to 40‰ or Artificial Sea Water (ASW) from 0 to 32‰.

Results

The study characterized the factor ‘salinity’ for the prospective application fields of the ELRA. With reference substances such as 17-β-estradiol, the ELRA showed classical sigmoidal concentration-effect relations in a range from 0.05 to 100 μg/l under physiological conditions. After a methodological adjustment to compensate decreasing receptor-binding affinity of estrogens and xeno-estrogens at higher salinity levels. the ELRA became applicable under salinity conditions up to concentrations of 20.5‰. In tests, the ELRA reached under the influence of salinity a mean limit of detection of 0.062 βg/l 17-β-estradiol. The mean relative inter-test error was around 11%. Above concentrations of 20.5‰ there is a risk of false negative assessment. Compared with the E-Screen method using the MCF7 cell line and the yeast estrogen test system (YES), the ELRA shows a lower sensitivity to 17-β-estradiol. In the E-Screen, the cell proliferation was strongly reduced by sodium chloride induced cytotoxicity. In comparison with the E-Screen, the salinity tolerance of the YES and YAS methods is significantly higher.

Discussion

Despite adaption, total salinity tolerance could not be achieved with the ELRA. Freshwater samples were generally appraisable. Higher salinity levels above 20.5‰ would tend towards false negative results. The low inter-test error of 11% makes the ELRA suitable for the detection of estrogenic and anti-estrogenic potentials of single substances, substance mixtures, and of environmental samples.

Conclusions

The ELRA is very fast and reproducible, it can be used for high-throughput screening in a microplate format at low cost, it is robust to microbial contamination, and is less susceptible to cytotoxic interferences than cell culture methods.

Recommendations and Perspectives

In their established form, the YES and the E-Screen methods are not applicable for liquid phase testing at higher salinity conditions. The salinity-adapted test version of the ELRA described here shows a broader working range for samples. Native water samples of more or less brackish origin or high-salinity effluent samples are testable. Results of tests with sediment associated samples of different salinity will be subject of a forthcoming publication.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Sonnenschein C, Soto AM (1998): An updated review of environmental estrogen and androgen mimics and antagonists. Steroid Biochem Mol Biol 65, 143–150

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Guillette LJJ, Gross TS, Mason GR, Matter JM, Percival HF, Woodward AR (1994): Developmental abnormalities of the gonad and abnormal sex-hormone concentrations in juvenile alligators from contaminated and control lakes in Florida. Environ Health Perspect 102, 680–688

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Fox GA (2001): Effects of Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals on Wildlife in Canada: Past, Present and Future. Water Qual Res J Canada 36(2) 233–251

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Ankley G, Mihaich E, Stahl R, Tillitt D, Colborn T, McMaster S, Miller R, Bantle J, Campbell P, Denslow N, Dickerson R, Folmar L, Fry M, Giesy J, Gray E, Guiney P, Hutchinson T, Kennedy S, Kramer V, LeBlanc G, Mayes M, Nimrod A, Patino R, Peterson R, Purdy R, Ringer R, Thomas P, Touart L, van der Kraak G, Zacharewski T (1998): Overview of a workshop on screening methods for detecting potential (anti-)estrogenic/androgenic chemicals in wildlife. Environ Toxicol and Chem 17(1) 68–87

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Blaise C, Gagne F, Salazar M, Salazar S, Trottier S, Hansen PD (2003): Experimentally-induced feminisation of freshwater mussels after long-term exposure to a municipal effluent. Fresenius Environmental Bullentin by PSP 12(8) 865–870

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Länge R, Hutchinson TH, Croudace CP, Siegmund F, Schweinfurth H, Hampe P, Pante, GH, Sumpter JP (2001): Effects of the synthetic estrogen 17-α-ethinylestradiol on the life-circle of the fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas). Environ Toxicol and Chem 20(6) 1216–1227

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Lutz I, Kloas W (1999): Amphibians as a model to study endocrine disruptors: l. Environmetal pollution and estrogen receptor binding. The Science of the Total Environment 225(1–2) 49–57

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Lutz I, Kloas W, Einspanier R (1999): Amphibians as a model to study endocrine disruptors: II. Estrogenic activity of environmental chemicals in vitro and in vivo. Sci Total Environ 225(1–2) 59–68

    Google Scholar 

  9. Stifani S, George R, Schneider WJ (1988): Solubilization and characterization of the chicken oocyte vitellogenin receptor. Biochem J 250, 467–475

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Eroschenko VP, Palmiter RD (1980): Estrogenicity of kepone in birds and mammals. In: McLachlan JA (ed), Estrogens in the Environment. Elsevier NY, USA, 305–325

    Google Scholar 

  11. Seibert H (1996): Störungen der Entwicklung und Funktion des männlichen Reproduktionssystems. UWSF — Z Umweltchem Ökotox 8(5) 275–284

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Seifert M (1999): Bestimmung von Oestrogenen und Xenooestrogenen mit einem Rezeptorassay. Dissertation zur Erlangung des Grades eines Doktors der Naturwissenschaften an der Technischen Universität München

  13. Seifert M, Haindl S, Hock B (1998): In vitro analysis of xenoestrogens by enzyme linked receptor assays (ELRA) Adv Exp Med Biol 444, 113–117

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Seifert M (2003): Luminescent enzyme linked receptor assay for estrogenic compounds. Anal Bioanal Chem 378(3) 684–687

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Seifert M, Haindl S, Hock B (1999): Development of an enzyme linked receptor assay (ELRA) for estrogens and xenoestrogens. Elsevier: Anal Chim Acta 386, 191–199

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. ISO 10253 (2006): Water quality — Marine algal growth inhibition test with Skeletonema costatum and Phaeodactylum tricornutum

  17. McDonnell DP, Nawaz Z, Densmore C, Weigel NL, Pham TA, Clark JH, O’Malley BW (1991): High level expression of biologically active estrogen receptor in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol 39(3) 291–297

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Soule HD, Vazquez J, Long A, Albert S, Brennan MJ (1973): A human cell line from a pleural effusion derived from a breast carcinoma. J Natl Cancer Inst 51, 1409–1413

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Soto AM, Sonnenschein C, Chung KL, Fernandez MF, Olea N, Serrano FO (1995): The E-SCREEN assay as a tool to identify estrogens: An update on estrogenic environmental pollutants. Environ Health Perspect 103(7) 113–22

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Reifferscheid G, Heil J, Oda Y, Zahn RK (1991): A microplate version of the SOS/umu-test for rapid detection of genotoxins and genotoxic potentials of environmental samples. Mutation Res 253 215–222

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. DIN 38415-6 (2003): Deutsche Einheitsverfahren zur Wasser-, Abwasser-und Schlammbehandlung — Suborganismische Testverfahren (Gruppe T) — Teil 6: Giftigkeit gegenüber Fischen, Bestimmung der nicht akut giftigen Wirkung von Abwasser auf die Entwicklung von Fischeiern über Verdünnungsstufen (T6)

  22. Rodbard D (1971): Statistical aspect of radioimmunoassay. In: Odell WD, Daughaday JB, Lipincott JB (eds), Competitive protein binding assays. Philadelphia, pp 204–259

  23. Rodbard D, Hutt DM (1974): Statistical analysis of radioimmunoassays and immunoradiometric (labelled antibody) assay: A generalized weighted, iterative, least squares method for logistic curve fitting. Radio-immunoassay and related procedures in Medicine 1, 165–192

    Google Scholar 

  24. Dizer H, Fischer B, Sepulveda l, Loffredo E, Senesi N, Santana F, Hansen PD (2001/2002): Estrogenic effect of leachates and soil extracts from lysimeters spiked with sewage sludge and reference endocrine disrupters. Wiley Periodicals Inc, pp 105–112

  25. Huschek G, Hansen PD (2005): Ecotoxicological classification of the Berlin River System using Bioassays in respect to the European Water Framework Directive. Environ Monit Assess 121(1–3) 15–31

    Google Scholar 

  26. Calmano W (2001): Untersuchung und Bewertung von Sedimenten. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, ISBN 3-540-42157-2

  27. Li W, Seifert M, Xu Y, Hock B (2004): Comparative study of estrogenic potencies of estradiol, tamoxifen, bisphenol-A and resveratrol with two in vitro assays. Environ Int 30(3) 329–335

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. German Federal Institute of Hydrology, Am Mainzer Tor 1, 56068, Koblenz, Germany

    Robert Kase, Werner Manz, Peter Heininger & Georg Reifferscheid

  2. Department of Ecotoxicology, Technical University of Berlin, Franklinstrasse 29, 10587, Berlin, Germany

    Peter-D. Hansen & Birgit Fischer

Authors
  1. Robert Kase
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Peter-D. Hansen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Birgit Fischer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Werner Manz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Peter Heininger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Georg Reifferscheid
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Georg Reifferscheid.

Additional information

ESS-Submission Editor: Dr. Jan Schwarzbauer (schwarzbauer@lek.rwth-aachen.de)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kase, R., Hansen, PD., Fischer, B. et al. Integral assessment of estrogenic potentials of sediment-associated samples. Environ Sci Pollut Res 15, 75–83 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1065/espr2007.06.429

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1065/espr2007.06.429

Keywords

Search

Navigation